Sperm donor limits that control for the ‘relative’ risk associated with the use of open-identity donors

• Published in: Human reproduction (Oxford) 2010-05, Vol.25 (5), p.1089-1096
• Main Author: Sawyer, Neroli
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adoption - psychology; anonymous donor; Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence; Female; half-sibling union; Humans; Incest - prevention & control; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - legislation & jurisprudence; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - psychology; Male; open-identity donor; Pregnancy; psycho-social impact; Psychology; Registries; revocation of anonymity; Risk Factors; Siblings; Spermatozoa; Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence; Tissue Donors - psychology
• ISSN: 0268-1161; 1460-2350
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq038

The majority of countries that support the use of donor insemination (DI) in artificial reproductive technology (ART) limit the number of children born from one donor. The setting of these donor limits, though intended to control for the risk of inadvertent half-sibling unions between the offspring of anonymous donors, actually have no evidence base. Controlling for the risk of inadvertent half-sibling unions may soon become unnecessary due to the increasing world-wide use of open-identity sperm donors and the revocation of donor anonymity in many countries. With the shift from anonymous to open-identity donation, the central issue is not the risk of genetic abnormality from inadvertent half-sibling consanguinity; it is the psycho-social impact of the multiple use of open-identity sperm donors. Despite this, the jurisdictions that allow or mandate the use of open-identity donors continue to observe existing limits that do not consider nor specifically control for the psycho-social impact of the multiple use of open-identity sperm donors. It is proposed that: (i) conservative interim donor limits be placed on the multiple use of open-identity donors, while research into the psycho-social impact of disclosure is undertaken to inform the establishment of evidence-based limits; and (ii) the existing limits in jurisdictions where anonymity is still commonly practiced or protected could be raised, if an updated mathematical model was used for calculating evidence-based anonymous donor limits.